Sentences with phrase «what creationism»

In short, they are making the case that there is no valid skepticism because it's largely an attack from political opposition to science itself, which is precisely what the creationism argument is.

Most of these self - proclaimed scientists have no idea what creationism stands for and are very adept at knocking over a straw man which exists ony in their own mind.

Not exact matches

Bottom line is this, keep it out of the public square; learn to respect others beliefs / disbeliefs; stop trying to tell LGBT they are wrong; stop trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies; stop trying to push bogus creationism crap (backed with zero evidence) on innocent children in the public school system; just stop pushing it outside your home or church.

What I'm reading in the distinction between ID and literal creationism is a «No True Scotsman» fallacy, i.e. who is and isn't a «true» bible - believing Christian.

«He (Ham) believes it is fundamentally unfair of folks like Nye to push creationism further into the educational shadows and to deny what Ham sees as its scientific components.»

He believes it is fundamentally unfair of folks like Nye to push creationism further into the educational shadows and to deny what Ham sees as its scientific components.

Sorry, I though that scientific creationism was some kind of publication due to your unnecessary capitalization (seriously, what is it with the religious and random capitalization?).

(Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything.

And what it will confirm is that both creationism and evolutionism is a belief system not science.

Grow up and learn what the bible teaches, creationism is a joke.

you are either for creationism or for science while ignoring what people such as myself believe that, yes, God created us but through the process of evolution according to the laws of His Nature.

Ohhh, is that what you were doing in the Dove school district when Christians tried to force creationism into the public school science curricula?

Then mankind does learn what atoms, the very seeds of all Creationism are!

But seriously folks... So what if their owners still believe in creationism, gods and devils, heaven and hell, magical powers, Noah's ark, people rising from the dead, angels, talking snakes, and virgin births.

You are comparing things that I see as two different categorys.One is using a record recorded in the bible, for determining creationism, (or what caused the «big bang» as some believe) in regards to science, and what can be proven, in that respect.

It is interesting to see how nonbelievers are so quick to define what believers opinions are on issues like creationism, evolution, a deity, etc..

I have studied a lot of what they say... it was interesting to watch the Cosmos series on fox tv... they dealt with a lot of the things that the scientific creationism group has to say... they are studying their stuff, perhaps you should too...

What's ironic is that it is Keith that is dragging his children under by cramming their heads with mythical thinking, creationism, and a whole host of illogical beliefs.

Whats wrong is When They Fight Science and Praise Creationism, which has created nothing but Republican Psychobabble.

Here is what is nice ID or Creationism will never be taught in public schools in USA OK.

The orthodox explanation of what is wrong with creationism goes something like this: Science has accumulated overwhelming evidence for evolution.

What I said was to remove all encroachment on other's lives by religion, e.g. science class creationism, bans on stem cell research, etc..

and that is what the issue is with people who believe in creationism.

In what way does that scenario have anything to do with evolution or creationism?

If what you say is true then there wouldn't be a push to teach creationism (not founded on science) in schools.

He was confident enough in his faith to not see how science could undo what was important in religion even though the Pope at the time tried to twist his ideas into a convoluted «proof» of Creationism which Lemaître resisted.

And from what I understand Creationism is stronger here in the US than elsewhere but I have read about variant versions in other countries so I don't think it is correct to say that it is just a US phenomena.

Creationism is much more than creating Adam & Eve; it's what mankind terms as science and everything beyond (the unknown).

Rufus, maybe if you actually studied Creationism or the theory of «Creation Science» you'd understand what it really is before you attack it.

And what if your kids learn both and say «Mom, I think Creationism is stupid, I'm learning evolution.»

@Timothy, I'm not sure what definition of «Creationism» you are using, but the article is mainly talking about Young Earth Creationism, which is inconsistent with the scientific evidence available.

If he did a little more research he might just be surprised about what evidence there is for creationism.

What evidence is there for creationism?

This is why creationism is bad for children, because those indoctrinated in it have very poor understandings of what biology even says.

What Billy boy has not mentioned is that some of the VERY BEST scientific discoveries, and I mean the MOST IMPORTANT ones we discovered my devoutly Christian men who loved God and believed in creationism.

What he is saying is that creationism is both false and the result of ignorance, and contributes to the dumbing down of our own children.

There is the jab about evolution where when creationism is mentioned it is cast in a negative «not truth» light with the exception of a minority that hang onto such antiquated religious thoughts That is not what the const - itution intended.

It suggests that the latter should more properly be called «special - creationism», for what it really teaches is that every life - form is made by a special act of creation, and it counsels Christians not «to present God's creative design as if he were granddad in the potting shed with components on a shelf, a workbench and a pencil behind his ear!»

It remains to be said, however, that what passes for «creationism» today is in truth a pseudo-scientific doctrine and has no place in scientific instruction.

The very notion that «leaves the door open to creationism» begs the question of what the writers agenda was.

What you don't seem to understand, or at least fail to acknowledge, is that there aren't any facts that exclusively point to Creationism or Christianity, while there are reams of papers on the facts supporting geology and evolution.

Even if all scientists declared evolution to be entirely errant, creationism could be taught as a science only in terms of what it denies, namely, that there is sufficient evidence for evolution.

I do nt believe a persons view on creationism or evolution is a «salvation issue» but once you have become a child of God I do nt see how you cant allow yourself to believe in the entire Bible and trust that God is BIG enough to do what He says and did create the world in 7 days with no help from «time and evolution» evolution is a trick from Satan to keep you from completly trusting God for everything.

Here we have the blind spot of creationism, for if we define science as the study of nature, then to offer an opinion concerning what lies outside of it is to step entirely outside of the scientific realm.

But he makes the point that this only modifies what Darwin proposed, and he also argues against creationism.

What I don't understand about the Trogs who believe in Creationism is that they never indicate exactly which of the two creation myths in Genesis that they believe.

It's okay to believe in creationism while at the same time accepting what is proven.

Creationism on the other hand agrees with what we witness today, and that is «every seed after it's own kind».

If that question now seems quite silly and seems like the last thing that should occur to someone who has just finished the Book of Genesis (the whole thing, not just cherry - picked portions of it), then you pass and you are now qualified to judge Creationism for what it is: bad theology that starts with a deliberate misreading of that book.

Such a reduction is in fact attempted by what is known today as «creationism,» or especially «scientific creationism,» which presents the biblical accounts of cosmic origins and God's activity as though they were alternative scientific and objectively historical accounts rivaling those of secular science and history.